Jim Elbrecht wrote:

"Pete C." wrote:

-snip-

Having run a snowblower regularly from about 12-34, it is damn close to
"just walk behind it" as far as the regular driveway is concerned. Turns
are simply lean to the side while the snowblower is moving.

Was that you that mentioned leaning yesterday? I've been blowing
snow with all manner of blowers- electric, single & double-stage,
1960s vintage to 2000-ish. I'm not understanding what you mean by
'leaning'.

Nope, that was someone else. Snowblowers have long handles, when you
stand further forward behind them you are between the handles, and to
turn you just lean into the handle opposite the direction you want to
turn and it will happily turn while moving, without requiring much if
any arm strength. Learn this technique and you'll find the whole process
less tiring.


Granted I
was also known to be rather aggressive with the snowblower in cutting
down snow banks and other funkiness, which does require wrestling the
machine, but that's not required for basic driveway clearing.

I love the cleanup when you've got 6foot snowbanks on either side that
the blower barely clears. If it hasn't frozen into glaciers I'll
get the electric out and cut them down with that. Otherwise I shave
of edges with the drift cutters and let the overhangs collapse.

I used to simply take the snowblower up on top of the banks to cut them
down and blow the snow further back when they got too tall to blow over,
but I also always blew the snow as far back as I could so the banks
didn't develop much at the edge of the driveway.




Yeah, your method works great for the first pass, but what about when
you reach the end of the driveway?

To turn one around, you need to be able to man-handle 250lbs of dead
weight. Your typical consumer-grade snowblower like any of the MTD and
Airens products have live axles. Both wheels drive equally. They don't
turn for beans.

Every Ariens snowblower I have owned has had a differential and a
selectable differential lock. I typically leave it locked, but it's
certainly available to unlock if you want easier / tighter turns.

Smack myself in the head. I'm with you in the 'it ain't hard work'
camp- and I had completely forgotten that even my 30-something year
old Bolens [essentially a Red Ariens] had locking hubs. I keep them
locked because I have a steep driveway- but if I had one of those flat
little postage stamps I'd unlock them and make the turns easier.

Yep, they're easy to forget when the wheel is caked in snow so you can't
see the lock.


As it is I do very few sharp turns. I do the 'blow forward, then
back up' thing in my turnaround-- and after the first couple trips
down the center of the driveway, I've got a pretty good radius to
sweep around. One hand on the machine is all it takes.

Yep, you don't often need to make tight turns if you think about what
you're doing. Also, even with the differential locked, tight turns
aren't very difficult as long as you push down on the handles to lift
the front end of the snowblower up off the ground so you aren't trying
to drag the skids through stuff.


The hard work for me is walking back up the hill, but at least the
snowblower can pull me a little.

If you have a sufficiently large snowblower, you might get away with
attaching one of those one wheel "boogies" that a lot of landscapers use
behind big mowers.

I'm calling for a congressional investigation, and immediate
budget of 100 billion to fund generators and satelite
internet.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:44:17 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's true; I don't know. Well, in a couple days when the
power comes back on, please tell us how you did.

We need generators and satellite internet. We can't afford
to lose
contact with out newsgroups!

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:17 pm, "benick" wrote:
My dad is 70 and he runs a snowblower just fine..

Mine's 84 & on a windy hill with a 200' long steep drive. He broke
his hip a couple winters ago & when the PT asked if he had any hobbies
he answered 'Gardening'. Then she asked what he did in the winter.
'Blow snow' was his answer. When he can't do his driveway any more
he'll be a very sad man. Some folks might not enjoy it so much.

It is self propelled and
electric start with a cab over it...He opens the garage dooor and goes at
it.No straining at all..You just walk behind it..LOL...

There is a bit of work & science to it. Dad can't use a cab because
there is always too much wind-- so he goes with proper headgear and
goggles. He's also got a newer blower [8-10HP] that freewheels one
side when you turn. That makes a huge difference. My 8hp, 1980's
Bolens is a bear to turn. [but sure beats shoveling.] OTOH- my
little Toro electric is lighter than a shovel full of wet snow-- and
it will empty a mud puddle full of water in a couple seconds.


Have you ever run a snowblower? It certainly is NOT a matter of "just
walk behind it."

We used to go the dog park every day in the winter. It used to be 4
tennis courts. If we got a big snowfall I'd go over with the blower
& clear some paths. It was fun to just walk around without having
to turn around at all. Except for it being a *slow* walk-- it was
indeed, just 'walking behind it'.


Yeah, your method works great for the first pass, but what about when
you reach the end of the driveway?

To turn one around, you need to be able to man-handle 250lbs of dead
weight. Your typical consumer-grade snowblower like any of the MTD and
Airens products have live axles. Both wheels drive equally. They don't
turn for beans.

Dad's 4-5? year old blower isn't anything fancy- but it has the
freewheeling so turning is easy. If you didn't have to keep the
lever depressed it would be a 1 finger operation.

If you have an older snowblower, or modify the stupid controls on a new
one, it goes to hands off operation which is great for the first few
passes where you can let the snowblower do it's thing in low gear while
you walk around and collect fallen branches. Just have to walk over to
it occasionally and adjust the direction to keep it on track.

I do the same with my riding mower w/ vac bagger in the fall, letting it
continue sucking up leaves while I walk ahead and get fallen branches
out of the way.

On Feb 9, 1:47*pm, stayin@home. (Stranded) wrote:
Well, 24" had just fallen and now we're getting nailed with another
20" on top of it.

PRIMARY PLAN: Assume that the farmer who has been reliable for so many
years would continue to be.

He got old too. Even if he was in his 20's when you moved in, he's in
his 50's now, and farming is hard on the body. I know my Dad wouldn't
even consider scooping 24" of snow out of 600+ feet of driveway 10
years ago, let alone now. 20 years ago he'd think twice. 30 years ago,
no problem.

You can't push that kind of snow. It has to be blown or scooped up and
dumped to the side.

SECONDARY PLAN: Call other snow removal people listed in phone book.

In the middle of the f*cking snow storm of the century when they've
already got twice as much work as they can handle. Good plan.

TERTIARY PLAN: *If I'd've know that #1 and #2 wouldn't work, I'd've
put the vehicle at the bottom of the driveway, shop for small amts. of
food every day, and carry it up the hill. *We did this in the past.

You've got two choices now: Wait until it's too late and die, or call
the county sheriff's non-emergency number before it becomes an
emergency.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:29:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 9, 1:47=A0pm, stayin@home. (Stranded) wrote:
Well, 24" had just fallen and now we're getting nailed with another
20" on top of it.

PRIMARY PLAN: Assume that the farmer who has been reliable for so many
years would continue to be.

He got old too. Even if he was in his 20's when you moved in, he's in
his 50's now, and farming is hard on the body. I know my Dad wouldn't
even consider scooping 24" of snow out of 600+ feet of driveway 10
years ago, let alone now. 20 years ago he'd think twice. 30 years ago,
no problem.

You can't push that kind of snow. It has to be blown or scooped up and
dumped to the side.

Really?

Late Monday night, he pushed and dragged the snow out of my driveway,
after installing new chains to climb the hill. He has a humongous
John Deere that serves multiple purposes.

Problem is we're going through another monster storm that started
yesterday. When the vicious winds subside sometime tomorrow, he'll
hopefully return. Or maybe Friday. Two monsters within four days.

SECONDARY PLAN: Call other snow removal people listed in phone book.

In the middle of the f*cking snow storm of the century when they've
already got twice as much work as they can handle. Good plan.

They sure were pimping for business in the spring for their landscape
businesses. But when ya need them .....

TERTIARY PLAN: =A0If I'd've know that #1 and #2 wouldn't work, I'd've
put the vehicle at the bottom of the driveway, shop for small amts. of
food every day, and carry it up the hill. =A0We did this in the past.

You've got two choices now: Wait until it's too late and die, or call
the county sheriff's non-emergency number before it becomes an
emergency.

Ain't much I can do but wait.

County sheriff? Hell, the county govts. have pulled their snowplows
because of dangerous white out conditions. What's the sheriff going
to do ,,, pick me up with a helicopter?

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:47:09 GMT, stayin@home. (Stranded) wrote Re
So Where Are All These Unemployed People?:

Problem is we're going through another monster [snow] storm that started
yesterday. When the vicious winds subside sometime tomorrow, he'll
hopefully return. Or maybe Friday. Two monsters within four days.

Global warming in action.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

"dgk" wrote in message
...

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

Yup. I'm where it's not snowing, although it "normally" would be. We've
gotten less than 2 inches total from both storms, and the temps are in the
high 20s. "Normal" for my neck of the woods is at least 6 inches a week and
single digits at this time of the year. Everyone south of us is much colder
and much deeper in snow. Been like this for several years now. Certainly not
the weather we had 30-40 years ago. It's certainly not a "normal" weather
cycle like some other poster was positing. When I was a kid we had snow in
November and it was up over the windows by January and we didn't see grass
until April. We regularly had temps of -20F (not including wind chill) or
colder for days at a time. This year we've barely dipped below 0 and most of
the snow melted (lawn is mostly grass) weeks ago. We got a dusting this
morning, but it will be up above freezing soon, so it will melt again. Very
odd winters the past few years. Love it, though.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Next year, when the snow clears. Be sure to buy ahead, and
keep your home stocked with food, kerosene, and other needs.

Storm or no storm, that's just a plain old good idea no matter what.

Jon

benick wrote:


My dad is 70 and he runs a snowblower just fine..It is self propelled
and electric start with a cab over it...He opens the garage dooor and
goes at it.No straining at all..You just walk behind it..LOL...

My grandmother mowed her own lawn (front *and* back) until she was in her
upper eighties. Anytime someone would offer to do it for her, she would say
she needed the exercise.

Jon

dgk wrote:

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

dgk wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:44:17 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's true; I don't know. Well, in a couple days when the
power comes back on, please tell us how you did.

We need generators and satellite internet. We can't afford to lose
contact with out newsgroups!

Sorry, I just shipped my last two complete working kits to Haiti a
couple weeks ago. (well, they belong to my employer, but anything I drag
down to the back dock on a flatbed, I consider 'mine'.)

--
aem sends...

Jon Danniken wrote:
benick wrote:

My dad is 70 and he runs a snowblower just fine..It is self propelled
and electric start with a cab over it...He opens the garage dooor and
goes at it.No straining at all..You just walk behind it..LOL...

My grandmother mowed her own lawn (front *and* back) until she was in her
upper eighties. Anytime someone would offer to do it for her, she would say
she needed the exercise.

Jon


That is why I haven't broken down and bought a riding mower, as much as
I would love one, and can easily afford it. I really do need the
exercise of pushing that thing around. Unlike shoveling snow, mowing
doesn't trash my back for a day or two.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Jon Danniken wrote:
benick wrote:

My dad is 70 and he runs a snowblower just fine..It is self propelled
and electric start with a cab over it...He opens the garage dooor and
goes at it.No straining at all..You just walk behind it..LOL...

My grandmother mowed her own lawn (front *and* back) until she was in her
upper eighties. Anytime someone would offer to do it for her, she would
say she needed the exercise.

Jon
That is why I haven't broken down and bought a riding mower, as much as I
would love one, and can easily afford it. I really do need the exercise of
pushing that thing around. Unlike shoveling snow, mowing doesn't trash my
back for a day or two.

--
aem sends...


As do I ...I love mowing the lawn with a push mower and need the
exercise..About 2 acres worth..LOL.....It also does a MUCH better job
IMHO...We also have a lot of trees , gardens , hills ect. so it's not ALL
lawn..My dad's snowblower is a newer Craftsman 18HP with dual wheels that
turns really easy with power steering..Boy don't it really throw the
snow...LOL...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
dgk wrote:

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.


The climate changes 4 times a year here in Maine...Spring , Summer , Fall
and Winter...Man Made Global Warming or Climate change or whatever the
environuts are calling it now is a HOAX...

Sounds like you're either old enough to know what a "pantry"
is. Or, you're a survivalist. or both?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jon Danniken" wrote in
message ...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Next year, when the snow clears. Be sure to buy ahead, and
keep your home stocked with food, kerosene, and other
needs.

Storm or no storm, that's just a plain old good idea no
matter what.

Jon

HeyBub wrote:
dgk wrote:
That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.


About every piece I have seen on "global warming" that had any depth said:
- temperatures are rising on *average* taken *world wide*
- the resulting climate change at any *point* is unpredictable - maybe
hotter, maybe colder, maybe productive farm areas will loose their rain,
maybe.... Weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways.
- on average the energy in the atmosphere will increase - including
moisture which is a form of energy. That can cause more severe storms,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, ... - in short, more extreme weather.

A very large snow storm is consistent with "climate change" - there is
more heat in the atmosphere in the form of moisture. What little I have
seen on this storm is it is like lake effect snow with the lake being
the ocean.

Also consistent with "climate change":
- massive rainstorms and mudslides in California
- drought in the south
- light to moderate rain over at least 8 hours around Christmas in
Minnesota, also another day since.

No scientist would say any of the above is from "climate change". To do
so would confuse "weather" with "climate". Denying "climate change"
based on a snow storm shows a similar lack of understanding of science.

--
bud--

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:57:03 -0600, bud--
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
dgk wrote:
That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.


About every piece I have seen on "global warming" that had any depth said:
- temperatures are rising on *average* taken *world wide*
- the resulting climate change at any *point* is unpredictable - maybe
hotter, maybe colder, maybe productive farm areas will loose their rain,
maybe.... Weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways.
- on average the energy in the atmosphere will increase - including
moisture which is a form of energy. That can cause more severe storms,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, ... - in short, more extreme weather.

A very large snow storm is consistent with "climate change" - there is
more heat in the atmosphere in the form of moisture. What little I have
seen on this storm is it is like lake effect snow with the lake being
the ocean.

Also consistent with "climate change":
- massive rainstorms and mudslides in California
- drought in the south
- light to moderate rain over at least 8 hours around Christmas in
Minnesota, also another day since.

No scientist would say any of the above is from "climate change". To do
so would confuse "weather" with "climate". Denying "climate change"
based on a snow storm shows a similar lack of understanding of science.

--
bud--

I'm not a climatologist and I suspect that you aren't either. Anyway
....

The Kool-aid set would scream "global warming" regardless of the
weather.

30 yrs. ago, it was the "New Ice Age."

Fact is that there's no proof that warming is anthropogenic, or that
man can reverse it, or that it is necessarily catastrophic.

Fact is that all sorts of recent stories are breaking but being swept
under the rug by the mainstream media about flawed data that
supposedly support the "global warming" concept.

Fact is that the individuals and organizations who are pushing the
concept are those in favor of redistribution of first-world wealth.

Fact is that the climatologists who have expressed the need for more
study have been silenced by the media. I'm talking about scientists,
not Limbaugh, Palin, etc.

Must Be Bush's Fault wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:57:03 -0600, bud--
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
dgk wrote:
That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.
More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

About every piece I have seen on "global warming" that had any depth said:
- temperatures are rising on *average* taken *world wide*
- the resulting climate change at any *point* is unpredictable - maybe
hotter, maybe colder, maybe productive farm areas will loose their rain,
maybe.... Weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways.
- on average the energy in the atmosphere will increase - including
moisture which is a form of energy. That can cause more severe storms,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, ... - in short, more extreme weather.

A very large snow storm is consistent with "climate change" - there is
more heat in the atmosphere in the form of moisture. What little I have
seen on this storm is it is like lake effect snow with the lake being
the ocean.

Also consistent with "climate change":
- massive rainstorms and mudslides in California
- drought in the south
- light to moderate rain over at least 8 hours around Christmas in
Minnesota, also another day since.

No scientist would say any of the above is from "climate change". To do
so would confuse "weather" with "climate". Denying "climate change"
based on a snow storm shows a similar lack of understanding of science.


Fact is that there's no proof that warming is anthropogenic,

There is no "proof" for much widely accepted science, like plate tectonics.

There is wide consensus by experts in many appropriate fields that
anthropogenic global warming is a fact and is a serious risk to the world.

or that
man can reverse it,

The goal is to slow and then stop it.

or that it is necessarily catastrophic.

The Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, it is melting much faster
than predicted. The rise in ocean level from a melting Greenland ice
sheet alone would be catastrophic.

Fact is that the individuals and organizations who are pushing the
concept are those in favor of redistribution of first-world wealth.

Ah yes, the conspiracy, including many national academies of science.

Not to worry - it is effectively countered by the Bilderberg Group with
the help of the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion.


I really don't find arguments on science that is backed by a wide
consensus of scientists interesting. The arguments often involve
alternate realities.

--
bud--

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:18:03 -0600, bud--
wrote:

Must Be Bush's Fault wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:57:03 -0600, bud--

Fact is that there's no proof that warming is anthropogenic,

There is no "proof" for much widely accepted science, like plate tectonics.

There is wide consensus by experts in many appropriate fields that
anthropogenic global warming is a fact and is a serious risk to the world.

or that
man can reverse it,

The goal is to slow and then stop it.

or that it is necessarily catastrophic.

The Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, it is melting much faster
than predicted. The rise in ocean level from a melting Greenland ice
sheet alone would be catastrophic.

Fact is that the individuals and organizations who are pushing the
concept are those in favor of redistribution of first-world wealth.

Ah yes, the conspiracy, including many national academies of science.

Not to worry - it is effectively countered by the Bilderberg Group with
the help of the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion.


I really don't find arguments on science that is backed by a wide
consensus of scientists interesting. The arguments often involve
alternate realities.

--
bud--


Nice snip job.

On Feb 10, 6:08*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
dgk wrote:

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

The Earth's climate is more complicated than a pan of water. Your
model is flawed. Consider the effect of El Nino (as we are seeing
this year); that's an oceanic current that moves around. If the
average global temperature increases, we might well see more
El Nino events than we have been.

Of course, you simply don't want to believe in global warming, so no
rational persuasion will have any effect.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:07:29 GMT, AnAbsolute****Lives@WhiteHouse.
(Must Be Bush's Fault) wrote Re So Where Are All These Unemployed
People?:

The Kool-aid set would scream "global warming" regardless of the
weather.

30 yrs. ago, it was the "New Ice Age."

Fact is that there's no proof that warming is anthropogenic, or that
man can reverse it, or that it is necessarily catastrophic.

Fact is that all sorts of recent stories are breaking but being swept
under the rug by the mainstream media about flawed data that
supposedly support the "global warming" concept.

Fact is that the individuals and organizations who are pushing the
concept are those in favor of redistribution of first-world wealth.

Fact is that the climatologists who have expressed the need for more
study have been silenced by the media. I'm talking about scientists,
not Limbaugh, Palin, etc.

Well said.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Sounds like you're either old enough to know what a "pantry"
is. Or, you're a survivalist. or both?

I wish I was more of a survivalist, but I do make sure to keep several weeks
worth of dry/canned foods in the house should I get stuck here for a short
length of time.

I also backpack, so the dried goods are used by me throughout the year as
provisions, which is kind of nice because I know what I need and what works
for nutrition.

Jon

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 6:08 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
dgk wrote:

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

The Earth's climate is more complicated than a pan of water. Your
model is flawed. Consider the effect of El Nino (as we are seeing
this year); that's an oceanic current that moves around. If the
average global temperature increases, we might well see more
El Nino events than we have been.

Of course, you simply don't want to believe in global warming, so no
rational persuasion will have any effect.

Cindy Hamilton



Taking a sample of rising temps over a 100 year span and trying to make a
judgment is like taking a nano second of your life and drawing
conclusions...The earth has been warming constantly since the last ice age
and to say what if anything man is doing is simply ridicoulis....Environuts
are sometimes called Watermelons...Green on the outside and RED on the
inside...LOL...

benick wrote:
"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 6:08 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
dgk wrote:

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

The Earth's climate is more complicated than a pan of water. Your
model is flawed. Consider the effect of El Nino (as we are seeing
this year); that's an oceanic current that moves around. If the
average global temperature increases, we might well see more
El Nino events than we have been.

Of course, you simply don't want to believe in global warming, so no
rational persuasion will have any effect.

Cindy Hamilton



Taking a sample of rising temps over a 100 year span and trying to make
a judgment is like taking a nano second of your life and drawing
conclusions...

Data goes back far more than 100 years. Scientists can go back thousands
of years through Antarctic ice cores, tree rings, lake and ocean
sediments. That is why there is a consensus of scientists from different
fields.

The earth has been warming constantly since the last ice
age and to say what if anything man is doing is simply
ridicoulis....

Data shows warming has increased starting about the industrial age and
is accelerating. To say anything else is to ignore the data.

Environuts are sometimes called Watermelons...Green on the
outside and RED on the inside...LOL...

The discredit the scientists ploy.

There is widespread consensus, based on observed data, from scientists
over many disciplines that dangerous global warming is taking place. It
is endorsed by many scientific organizations and many governments have
been convinced. Apparently all of them are "red". Hard to remember, but
isn't Bush II one of them.

--
bud--

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:21:47 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 6:08 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
dgk wrote:

That's why it's now called Climate Change instead of Gloal Warming.
Too many stupid people think that Global Warming means that it will
always be warmer and never get cold or snow again. "Oh wow, it's cold,
so much for global warming!"

Most of us learned that heat is energy and that more energy in the
atmosphere means more extreme events. And yes, over all, higher
average temperatures. Maybe not where you are right now. Where I am
right now we're getting another big snow storm.

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature, thermodynamics,
God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

The Earth's climate is more complicated than a pan of water. Your
model is flawed. Consider the effect of El Nino (as we are seeing
this year); that's an oceanic current that moves around. If the
average global temperature increases, we might well see more
El Nino events than we have been.

Of course, you simply don't want to believe in global warming, so no
rational persuasion will have any effect.

Cindy Hamilton



Taking a sample of rising temps over a 100 year span and trying to make a
judgment is like taking a nano second of your life and drawing
conclusions...The earth has been warming constantly since the last ice age
and to say what if anything man is doing is simply ridicoulis....Environuts
are sometimes called Watermelons...Green on the outside and RED on the
inside...LOL...


Our planet is in constant change. We should be far more concerned if
a comet or meteor strikes the earth--that can be 1000X the force of a
Hiroshima bomb. The number of sun flares affects our environment to a
great extent. Politicians will use anything to get votes. Sadly
many folks are not too educated, some believe the earth is 6,000 years
old because that is what the minister told them. Al Gore needs to be
educated. In any event, we can not save the planet but everyone
should be for recycling, reusing, and reducing energy consumption.

In article ,
bud-- wrote:


The earth has been warming constantly since the last ice
age and to say what if anything man is doing is simply
ridicoulis....

Data shows warming has increased starting about the industrial age and
is accelerating. To say anything else is to ignore the data.

There is some interesting stuff indicating that what you use as a
baseline makes a BIG difference. Most a time when we were in a "mini
ice age", with temps lower than usual so the increase is greater. Go
back 100 years further and the changes aren't as much.

Environuts are sometimes called Watermelons...Green on the
outside and RED on the inside...LOL...

The discredit the scientists ploy.

Well it works so well for the Climate Change group. You will note
that the term of art for those who dare to suggest that Global Warming
may not be man made is now "denier". The same term used to describe
those who doubt the Holocaust. I don't see that as a coincidence.


There is widespread consensus, based on observed data, from scientists
over many disciplines that dangerous global warming is taking place. It
is endorsed by many scientific organizations and many governments have
been convinced. Apparently all of them are "red". Hard to remember, but
isn't Bush II one of them.

At a similar point in the development of the science, the widespread
consensus, based on observed data, from scientists over many disciplines
was that the world was flat.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

More heat equals greater extremes? By what law of nature,
thermodynamics, God, man, or physics can that possibly be?

Weather dynamics are complicated.


If I add heat to a pan of water I can get ice?

Sort of: http://www.livescience.com/strangene...r-freeze-heat-
100211.html


Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

That is why it is called Climate Change and not Global Warming.


I don't know how much of Climate Change is influenced by man, but putting
less pollution in the air can only be good for us.

-phy

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:49:06 GMT, phy wrote:


Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

That is why it is called Climate Change and not Global Warming.

"Climate change" is the term du jour.

Yeah, they're swaying away from the "global warming" mantra, but when
you argue with one of them, they still talk about rising temperatures
and how those temps are the cause of "climate change."

In article ,
phy wrote:


Global warming = more severe winters is a scientific fiction.

That is why it is called Climate Change and not Global Warming.
It is called Climate Change (as of the last few years) because CC
means that you can now include all these little extras as part of the
problem instead of evidence against it. Thus ANYTHING that happens is
because of the evil carbon.



I don't know how much of Climate Change is influenced by man, but putting
less pollution in the air can only be good for us.


Depends on how and how much.

-phy

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
bud-- wrote:

The earth has been warming constantly since the last ice
age and to say what if anything man is doing is simply
ridicoulis....
Data shows warming has increased starting about the industrial age and
is accelerating. To say anything else is to ignore the data.

There is some interesting stuff indicating that what you use as a
baseline makes a BIG difference. Most a time when we were in a "mini
ice age", with temps lower than usual so the increase is greater. Go
back 100 years further and the changes aren't as much.

Some data, like CO2 in the atmosphere, is available for thousands of years.

Temperature data shows increase since the industrial revolution with the
increase accelerating. It doesn't take a lot of degrees of change to
produce some disastrous results. Those results, like melting of the
Greenland ice sheet, are also apparent. Temperature increase correlates
with CO2 increase.

Environuts are sometimes called Watermelons...Green on the
outside and RED on the inside...LOL...
The discredit the scientists ploy.

Well it works so well for the Climate Change group. You will note
that the term of art for those who dare to suggest that Global Warming
may not be man made is now "denier". The same term used to describe
those who doubt the Holocaust. I don't see that as a coincidence.

Likely from the media, not scientists.

There is widespread consensus, based on observed data, from scientists
over many disciplines that dangerous global warming is taking place. It
is endorsed by many scientific organizations and many governments have
been convinced. Apparently all of them are "red". Hard to remember, but
isn't Bush II one of them.

At a similar point in the development of the science, the widespread
consensus, based on observed data, from scientists over many disciplines
was that the world was flat.

How devastating.

Educated people knew the earth was round before Columbus, when there was
not a lot of 'science'. Aristotle knew the earth was round. Who are your
'scientists' and what were their disciplines? The general public may not
have adopted the idea for a while, just like global warming.

Science is, properly, somewhat resistant to change. Global warming has
been accepted by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in
related fields, and has been accepted over quite a short time. That is
because the results from multiple fields came to the same conclusion.

Similarly, governments have been convinced. The Koyoto Protocol has been
ratified by 187 countries, including all the developed industrial
nations except the US. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in
Copenhagen attracted 110 world leaders plus other representatives. The
US military also takes climate change seriously.

Bush II said global warming is a serious problem and he wanted to reduce
greenhouse gases.

People in the US are less convinced than the rest of the world that
global warming is a problem. But people in the US are also far less
convinced of evolution - probably a lot of the same people.

In this thread are people that
- don't understand the difference between global warming and climate
- don't understand the difference between climate and weather
- don't understand that some data is available for thousands of years
- think global warming is a 'red' plot (probably just like evolution).

I will follow the consensus of scientists who have actually studied
global warming.

--
bud--